Aim: To evaluate the impact of a medical education course (MEC) on the behaviour of general practitioners (GPs) to treat asthma and allergic rhinitis (AR). Methods: Data on 1820 patients (mean age 41yrs ± 17yrs) with asthma or AR were collected by 107 Italian GPs: 50% attended a MEC and 50% didn't (group B). The adherence for AR and asthma treatment was evaluated according to ARIA and GINA guidelines (GL). Results: AR and asthma were diagnosed in 78% and 56% of patients; 34% had concomitant AR and asthma. Regardless of the MEC, the adherence to GL was significantly higher for AR than for asthma treatment (52 versus 19%). Group B GPs were more compliant to ARIA guidelines in the treatment of mild AR, whereas group A were more compliant in the treatment of moderate-severe AR; the adherence didn't differ between the groups for AR patients with comorbid asthma. Adherence to GINA GL for asthma treatment did not differ between GPs of groups A and B, independently from concomitant AR. Though insignificantly, group A were more compliant to GINA GL in the treatment of patients with only severe persistent asthma (63 versus 46%) as group B were for patients with severe persistent asthma and concomitant AR. Conclusions: GPs often tend to treat patients independently from GL. The impact of a single MEC did not improve adherence to GL in treating less severe AR and asthma patients, while there was a trend towards the opposite attitude in more severe AR patients without concomitant asthma. © 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

The ARGA study with general practitioners: Impact of medical education on asthma/rhinitis management

Carrozzi L.;Pistelli F.;Paggiaro P.;Bonifazi F.;
2012-01-01

Abstract

Aim: To evaluate the impact of a medical education course (MEC) on the behaviour of general practitioners (GPs) to treat asthma and allergic rhinitis (AR). Methods: Data on 1820 patients (mean age 41yrs ± 17yrs) with asthma or AR were collected by 107 Italian GPs: 50% attended a MEC and 50% didn't (group B). The adherence for AR and asthma treatment was evaluated according to ARIA and GINA guidelines (GL). Results: AR and asthma were diagnosed in 78% and 56% of patients; 34% had concomitant AR and asthma. Regardless of the MEC, the adherence to GL was significantly higher for AR than for asthma treatment (52 versus 19%). Group B GPs were more compliant to ARIA guidelines in the treatment of mild AR, whereas group A were more compliant in the treatment of moderate-severe AR; the adherence didn't differ between the groups for AR patients with comorbid asthma. Adherence to GINA GL for asthma treatment did not differ between GPs of groups A and B, independently from concomitant AR. Though insignificantly, group A were more compliant to GINA GL in the treatment of patients with only severe persistent asthma (63 versus 46%) as group B were for patients with severe persistent asthma and concomitant AR. Conclusions: GPs often tend to treat patients independently from GL. The impact of a single MEC did not improve adherence to GL in treating less severe AR and asthma patients, while there was a trend towards the opposite attitude in more severe AR patients without concomitant asthma. © 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
2012
Baldacci, S.; Maio, S.; Simoni, M.; Cerrai, S.; Sarno, G.; Silvi, P.; Di Pede, F.; Borbotti, M.; Paola Pala, A.; Bresciani, M.; Viegi, G.; Antonietta ...espandi
File in questo prodotto:
Non ci sono file associati a questo prodotto.

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/11568/1082997
 Attenzione

Attenzione! I dati visualizzati non sono stati sottoposti a validazione da parte dell'ateneo

Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? 11
  • Scopus 31
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? 31
social impact